Leslie,
Without question, the Technician license is going to have the same
privileges as the Tech +. The CW segment is not small. It is the same
segment that the General and Advanced Class operators have. The Extra
too, except they have 25 more KHz at the bottom. This means that all
classes o
Yes Dave. I read it as the latter of your two possibilities.
Andy.
- Original Message -
From: Dave Bernstein
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:33 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: 80M State Emergency Nets Revived!
Its ambiguous, Andy. They could mean
"
Attention All Amateurs... End of an Era: FCC to Drop Morse Testing for All
Amateur License Classes (Dec 15, 2006) -- In an historic move, the FCC has
acted to drop the Morse code requirement for all Amateur Radio license classes.
The Commission today adopted a Report and Order (R&O) in WT Docket
I'm pretty sure that anyone who is a technician class, such as myself,
will still have to take the written test, element 3 or 4 depending on
whether we want General or Extra license, in order to operate on HF
Voice. Even those that are Tech + would have to take element 3 to
operate voice on HF exc
Here in VK interest in CW has been increasing one we no-coders got HF
privileges. The code practice beacons are an invaluable resource for those
learning. On-air code practice sessions take place and have increasing
number of participants, including those who did not require the code to get
on HF
LETS MAKE THE BEST OF THIS AND GO GET NEW GOOD HAMS !
--- kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> > When does this take effect? Can no code hams
> start tonight on HF or do
> > we have to wait for the rules to be published in
> the Federal Register
> > plus 30 days ?
>
> I a
Yes, Danny. I agree it was nice to be left alone in that 150 KC on 80.
Andy.
- Original Message -
From: Danny Douglas
I wish folk would quit saying that CW ops haven't lost anything. It was
promised that any changes would not narrow anyone's bandwidth. Nonsense!
We CW and digital fo
Andy,
I understand the FCC to say:
"We will fix the oversight by shifting all prior spectrum
privileges from 3620-3635 kHz down to 3585-3600 kHz."
This matches the suggested pactor channel table for
Oregon that I created back on November 29th. Just a hunch.
... Duane N7QDN
--- In digitalradi
Andrew O'Brien wrote:
> When does this take effect? Can no code hams start tonight on HF or do
> we have to wait for the rules to be published in the Federal Register
> plus 30 days ?
I am advised by someone familiar with bureaucrat-speak
that it is 30 days -- January 15, 2007.
--
Thanks! &
Its ambiguous, Andy. They could mean
"we'll change 97.221(b) from
(b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a
RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on
the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090-21.100 MHz, 18.105-
18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0
Taking an additional 15 KC away from narrow band cw and digital ops. It
just gets better and better!
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload t
Bert,
I think you have to compare the previous privileges to the current
privileges. Under the new rules General, Advanced and Extra hams lose
150 KHz for Data/RTTY from 3600 to 3750 and is a big impact although
most data/RTTY did not go much above say, 3650?
But it is a huge impact on the CW
Duane, I don't quite "get" their meaning..
"The ARRL argued
that the 75 m band should not have been expanded
below 3635 kHz, in order to protect automatically
controlled digital stations operating in the
3620-3635 kHz portion of the 80 m band. The FCC
concluded that these stations can be protected
When does this take effect? Can no code hams start tonight on HF or do
we have to wait for the rules to be published in the Federal Register
plus 30 days ?
Andy K3UK
Completely removing the CW requirement may not have been the best
move, but this better-late-than-never correction was asked for
and expected...
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269012A1.pdf
... Duane N7QDN
Why bother? They just did away with CW
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.
moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- O
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Radioguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA
CONTACT:
> December 15,
> 2006
> Chelsea Fallon: (202) 418-7991
>
> FCC MODIFIES AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE RULES,
> ELIMINATING MORSE CODE EXAM REQUIREME
Ill bet the VE sessions are loaded with people for the next several months.
That is what incentive licensing is all about. And the reason many of us
upgraded in the 60s. Why dont all those nets go up above 3800? People keep
saying that CW is allowed up there.
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US W
NOT ANOTHER SHOE - A BOOT. Take the damn bands and do what you want AR
Danny Douglas N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all
DX 2-6 years each
.
QSL LOTW-buro- direct
As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you
use that - also pls upload to LOTW
or hard card.
mod
I wish folk would quit saying that CW ops haven't lost anything. It was
promised that any changes would not narrow anyone's bandwidth. Nonsense! We
CW and digital folks have lost a LOT. We lost the ability to be left alone in
150 KC of bandwidth in the 80 meter band. Yes- we CAN send almost
David Michael Gaytko // WD4KPD wrote:
> now would be a good time to get the arrl cw practice down in the
> area that they themselves recommend for cw.
> david/wd4kpd
Effective today there is no more Morse Code
requirement so the ARRL should suspend CW
broadcasts immediately and release that spectr
now would be a good time to get the arrl cw practice down in the
area that they themselves recommend for cw.
david/wd4kpd
The black/white version:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/Hambands_bw.pdf
The color version:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/Hambands_color.pdf
--
Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida :-)
~~~
Thank our brave sold
OK, Dave. No, I had not read Rick's report to ARRL. Thanks.
Dave Bernstein wrote:
> The asymmetric propagation case is impractical to address, whether
> the stations involved are attended or unattended; fortunately, its
> not common. The case we can address is that of the unattended station
>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
December 15,
2006
Chelsea Fallon: (202) 418-7991
FCC MODIFIES AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE RULES,
ELIMINATING MORSE CODE EXAM REQUIREMENTS AND
ADDRESSING ARRL PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Washington, D.C. Today, the Federa
Nothing heard here. Is that 7117 USB or LSB ?
- Original Message -
From: kd4e
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:01 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Digital Signal on 7117 or 7118?
Can someone assist N0XY, please?
Original Message ---
Welcome to the group. I use an el-cheapo Circuit City PC with an integrated
sound "card". It works just fine for me on the digital modes. I think most
digital mode software would expect at least a 16 bit sound card.
Andy K3UK
- Original Message -
From: Leslie Elliott
To: d
John B. Stephensen wrote:
> and 8 kHz maximum bandwidth limit. However, ARRL memebers want more
> stringent regulations.
>
Not all of them.
73,
Paul / K9PS
(Life Member of both ARRL and QCWA who doesn't.)
General Class ops have lost all privileges from 3600 to 3800.
Advanced Class ops have lost all privileges from 3700 to 3800.
Thus the reason for CW nets having to move below 3600.
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew J. O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:
Thanks for reminded us Rick. With all that has been written, I have forgotten
what is new. Would the following rough summary be close?
Some parts of the 40 and 80M phone privileges have been extended in to the
former CW or digital portions.?
CW operators have lost nothing, just have to shar
Try the digital modes with what you have. It may work
fine for your operations. I have used much slower
computers with built in sound cards and they seem to
do ok for casual use.
73 de KU4PT
--- Leslie Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi - I just joined yesterday, and this is my first
>
Welcome to the group, Les, and welcome to digital radio in general!
I'm sure there will be several good ideas in response to your questions,
but I'll just give you my own opinion.
Try the on-board audio before you spend any money on a separate
card. You may find it works well enough that
David,
Most of the new rules are understandable, just a few that were confusing
or not completely clear or, at least in one case, in conflict with other
rules.
The ARRL announced today that their late filed Petition for
Reconsideration has not been acted upon by the FCC, therefore the new
reg
Hi - I just joined yesterday, and this is my first post. I am 70 years
old, and although I have a fairly good knowledge of electronics due to
having worked as a electronics tech and field engineer for many years, I
am somewhat computer illiterate, since it was BC (before computers LOL)
when I was
Can someone assist N0XY, please?
Original Message
Subject: Re: GB> Empathy for the Indians.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:30:54 -0600
From: Michael NØXY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: glowbugs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Could someone who can tune in that digital st
Hi all,
I am QRV on 14.109,5 USB (VFO) and "Wait connection..."
with rfsm2400 this weekend.
73 de LA5VNA Steinar
http://rfsm2400.aanesland.com
Nor do Germans understand having a speed limit. That doesnt mean they are
correct. Excess speed, proven by scientists, KILLS. Having rules sets a limit
on individuals who would never set a limit on themselves, at the expense of the
masses. Our ham populations exceeds that of most all Europea
Anyone on olivia t0night? Just wanted to do some psk / olivia trials.
with all the "translations" of the new 80m rules, i just wonder
if the auto/semiauto stations are gonna run in the 500hz section,
or gonna wait untill clarification.
would surely be looked on poorly by the narrow modes, and if
not legal, would look poorly to the FCC should they desire to
reconside
Continued failure to eliminate the preventable QRM from unattended
digital stations reinforces the position that amateurs cannot be
trusted with "the maximum possible autonomy to determine the highest
valued use of their spectrum".
Actual evidence that the operators of such stations "will prev
This is the part that those of us in other countries don't understand, not one
little bit
John
VE5MU
"I think that the FCC would love to take the approach used by other countries
and
say that hams can use their bands as they please given a 1500 W PEP power
limit
and 8 kHz maxi
Hello Bill,
RR for all.
>Am confused as in your MFSK16 help file it states "IMPORTANT: the
>picture format is not fixed as in classical SSTV but can be anything.
>The maximum dimensions of the transmitted picture are 1600x1200.
>Multipsk proposes to use the standard "320x256" to take advantage
Look at http://www.fcc.gov/sptf/reports.html to see what the FCC thinks.
Their
spectrum policy report states:
"As a general proposition, flexibility in spectrum regulation is critical to
improving
access to spectrum. In this context, flexibility means granting both
licensed users
and unlicense
John,
Your response is not one that I would have expected. Until my recent
retiremen, I worked for the better part of two decades, as an
environmental safety and health consultant. A substantial part of my
work involved contacting government bureaucrats at the state and federal
level to gain a
Greeting's:
I want to thank "ALL" of you that already took the time to submit your score
for the recent TARA RTTY Melee held back on Dec 2. To date we've received a
good amount of scores but we still need to hear from more of you.
I hope that I can appeal to those of you that kind of think
John Champa wrote:
> You would normally be correct.
> However, again, the FCC does not give a %$#& about Ham Radio!
> That includes the ARRL and all the celebrities you can find.
Licensed HAM celebrities? Isn't that counter-intuitive?
Asserting that they don't care about their own hobby
makes no
You would normally be correct.
However, again, the FCC does not give a %$#& about Ham Radio!
That includes the ARRL and all the celebrities you can find.
Original Message Follows
From: kd4e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
Mark,
I think you might be correct!
TELL...I write again**TELL** the FCC what you want down to the last
detail.
If they don't respond in a reasonable period (90 days?), well, then ya got
it! (HI)
It's called "management by exception", I think.
Although the League, to their credit, did pr
Anyone else hear the LSB Digital Signal on 3832.51?
Carrier is S7 here in west central Florida.
ON LSB it ounds like a rushing wind.
--
Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E
... in sunny & warm Florida :-)
~~~
Thank our brave soldiers this season:
http://www.letssayt
Maybe they should have tried this approach instead of petitioning the FCC.
73,
Mark N5RFX
At 09:24 AM 12/15/2006, you wrote:
>Only from the League's lawyer, silly. That's as good as it gets.
>
>Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, for Cat's
>sake?!
>Not I, dear sir.
So, we are to gather from this that the FCC is saying to
everyone -- go out and do whatever you want and unless
"someone" complains we don't care?
That is contrary to the nature of bureaucracy and
bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats are focused on avoidance of conflict and
expansion of power.
Only so long
Only from the League's lawyer, silly. That's as good as it gets.
Anyway, does anyone really want a response directly from the FCC, for Cat's
sake?!
Not I, dear sir. Especially after their recent Uni-Bus or whatever that
crash was (HI).
Here is the League's strategy: Ask them for specifically
How is this a response from the FCC? It looks like an opinion from a
lawyer, and the FCC was copied. Where is the FCC response?
73,
Mark N5RFX
At 11:13 PM 12/14/2006, you wrote:
>Attached is the response we got from the FCC via the ARRL: In effect, it
>states
>as long as nobody complains, we
53 matches
Mail list logo
